20-07-2004 21:30									#91
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Their show of displeasure falls under the same "freedom of speech" argument that allows the original person to speak their mind.

People can give their views, and people can show their views in regards to the views given. Should people be forced to listen to somebodies opinion, and not have an opinion of their own?

	20-07-2004 21:32									#92
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I asked my mom about this, as she is a big Linda Rondstadt fan and has all of her albums. Mom said it wasn't a shock to her, either--she'd been to several concerts, and Rondstadt had always expressed support for liberal causes, although she couldn't recall anything overtly political. An interesting insight my mom had is that Rondstadt has, as of late, been decidedly lackluster in her concerts, just going through the motions, not giving encores, etc. So maybe the audience was already steamed at being treated to a mediocre show for which they paid $80 a ticket, and then the political commentary was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

On the last paragraph, Boris, see the quote from Ronstadt that I posted. It sounds like you could be pretty much on the mark.

	20-07-2004 21:36									#93
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I'm not saying this is a legal freedom of speech issue. Legally, the people who kicked Rondstandt out did nothing wrong. I just think it sucks. I wish something like this wouldn't happen in America.

I think it says something about the right wing in general. When someone expresses a liberal viewpoint, they must be punished. But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints. I guess liberals have more respect for people than the right wingers do.

	20-07-2004 21:40									#94
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Who the hell is Linda Rondstadt?

She dated Barney Gumble at one time, IIRC.

	20-07-2004 21:40									#95
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Yes... freedom of speech. It kind of is a two way street. You can say what you want but people can protest that or boycott it. Saying that people exercising their free speech rights is detrimental to free speech is just an absurd position.

You know, that is like saying:

It is anti-freedom to deny people the freedom to kill others!

The two actions are not equivalent. One is voicing an opinion on a action- the other voicing an opinion on an opinion. One is meant to protest an act (with the hope that the act will be reversed or public opinion will formulate around a different policy). The other is an act hoping to change the opinion of others through pressure- not debate, but pressure, do X or we will punish you for it this way.

If Ben got on stage in a gay bar in Chelsea and spoke against gay marriage and the audience booed him and forced him out and tore at his picture, they would be as misguided as this one. In a society with real freedom of speech and tolerance of it, people would listen to all he had to say-then le him get off, then speak counter to what he said. That is freedom of speech and toleration.

As I said, there is a difference between freedom and liberty. Yes, people are free to boycott anyhting they want- the question is what is their aim? You don't boycott if your aim is to debate and discuss and come to an agreement, or a decision. You boycott to force others to change course-and when that is done in order to get tohers to change tyheir opinions not by debating them and showing them the error, or the opposite view, but rather by demeaning thir opinions or stating they are worthy of boycott, just as you would boycott a malfeasence.

So in esscence, boycotting someone for their opinion is the same as saying they have done something wrong- how on earth do we serve freedom of speech if syaing something can be labelled as "wrong" not in a factual but moral sense? It is little better than various European laws conservatives here always bring up in terms of speech.

	20-07-2004 21:48									#96
	Votes Support Apolyton

In political elections, we vote on what we want. In many cases, things are not up for a vote. Boycotts are like votes, but with money. How do you get rid of a particular brand of product? You don't buy it. If it is especially irksome to you, you might try and organize a boycott. To counter the boycott of the Rondstadt brand, you can buy more and make positive advertisements for it.

	20-07-2004 21:49									#97
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap If Ben got on stage in a gay bar in Chelsea and spoke against gay marriage and the audience booed him and forced him out and tore at his picture, they would be as misguided as this one.

Would he charge 80$ to entertain them, bore them instead, and then irritate them with his opinions? If not then I fail to see how it is comparable to this situation?

	20-07-2004 21:49									#98
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by GePap As I said, there is a difference between freedom and liberty. Yes, people are free to boycott anyhting they want- the question is what is their aim? You don't boycott if your aim is to debate and discuss and come to an agreement, or a decision. You boycott to force others to change course-and when that is done in order to get tohers to change tyheir opinions not by debating them and showing them the error, or the opposite view, but rather by demeaning thir opinions or stating they are worthy of boycott, just as you would boycott a malfeasence.

That is one point of view... one might also argue that people aren't trying to force people to change their mind... (Like the Dixie Chicks are going to ever change their minds ) For many it's a simple matter that they no longer want to spend their hard earned dollars to support somebody they disagree with. You wouldn't give money to a political party you disagree with, so what's the difference?

	20-07-2004 21:51									#99
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

We've had people thrown out of shopping malls for wearing anti-war T-shirts, the Dixie Chicks have received numerous death threats for similar reasons, scientists who let slip they don't worship the ground Bush walks on get passed up for jobs in government agencies- come on, this sort of behaviour from the right-wing is absolutely par for the course. And probably the left too. Why is anyone surprised?

	20-07-2004 21:53									#100
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I have to say, this quote made me guffaw:

"It's a real conflict for me when I go to a concert and find out somebody in the audience is a Republican or fundamental Christian. It can cloud my enjoyment. I'd rather not know."

--Rondstadt, in an interview.

Well, honey, what's good for the goose... ever think that your espousal of your beliefs in a concert is clouding the audience's enjoyment? And they're the ones who are paying money for it.

That pisses me off. If she was interested in expression of ideas and an exchange of them, that's one thing. But it seems she just wants to be able to give her view to a captive audience and then not give a crap what they have to think.

	20-07-2004 21:56									#101
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by GePap If Ben got on stage in a gay bar in Chelsea and spoke against gay marriage and the audience booed him and forced him out and tore at his picture, they would be as misguided as this one.

Um, not quite. People don't go to gay bars to hear political diatribes or be confronted with complaints they are sinners. They go to bars to drink, cruise, people watch, have fun with friends, etc. There's a place for everything, and inside a privately-owned bar ain't it. The owners would certainly have every right to throw him to the curb.

Now, if he stood on a street corner in Chelsea and did it, that'd be a different story.

	20-07-2004 22:04									#102
	Put an end to popups!

If this Linda Ronstadt chick was at the Republican Convention and gave Michael Moore the thumbs-up on stage, I don't think anyone would be complaining if she got the boot. That is the equivelent of going to a gay bar and saying "I dedicate this song to Ben Kenobi", not what actually happened to her

	20-07-2004 22:07									#103
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie That is the equivelent of going to a gay bar and saying "I dedicate this song to Ben Kenobi"

They would just assume you were some sort of Star Wars fanboy.

	20-07-2004 22:13									#104
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Boris Godunov I asked my mom about this, as she is a big Linda Rondstadt fan and has all of her albums. Mom said it wasn't a shock to her, either--she'd been to several concerts, and Rondstadt had always expressed support for liberal causes, although she couldn't recall anything overtly political.

I didnt mean that she ran for a political position herself. I would call her political in the same way that Baez is political i.e. she actively espouses her liberal causes through her public platform.

	20-07-2004 22:14									#105
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sava not a troll...

That's pretty sad, then, if you actually believed half the crap in your post.

	20-07-2004 22:14									#106
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I was just assuming that the Cult of Apolyton had spread so far you can't even go to a gay bar without people knowing who the most contraversial posters are...

	20-07-2004 22:14									#107
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: Who the hell is Linda Rondstadt? She dated Barney Gumble at one time, IIRC.

Lest we forget, she was Jerry Brown's common-law spouse/girlfriend for many many years.




Now I'll have to explain who Jerry Brown was/is to the kids.

	20-07-2004 22:16									#108
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Gibsie I was just assuming that the Cult of Apolyton had spread so far you can't even go to a gay bar without people knowing who the most contraversial posters are...

I wouldnt call Ben Kenobi a contraversial poster.

	20-07-2004 22:28									#109
	Support Apolyton

quote: But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints.

*cough* Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show *cough*

quote: The two actions are not equivalent. One is voicing an opinion on a action- the other voicing an opinion on an opinion.

They are 'not equivalent' on a technicality that one is on an action and the other is on an opinion. There is practically and morally no difference between voicing an opinion on an action or another opinion. When you voice an opinion on a political action you are basically voicing your opinion on the politician's opinion of what the world should be.

Any difference between the two is trivial.

quote: boycotting someone for their opinion is the same as saying they have done something wrong- how on earth do we serve freedom of speech if syaing something can be labelled as "wrong" not in a factual but moral sense?

Um... part of freedom of speech is that we have the right to attempt to convince people their opinions are wrong using our own opinions. To deny that is to deny free speech. It doesn't matter if it is to change opinion through pressure. The pressure is from the opinions of other people in the society. You cannot have free speech if you don't allow people to express their own opinions through boycotts and verbal pressure. It's essential.

quote: If Ben got on stage in a gay bar in Chelsea and spoke against gay marriage and the audience booed him and forced him out and tore at his picture, they would be as misguided as this one. In a society with real freedom of speech and tolerance of it, people would listen to all he had to say-then le him get off, then speak counter to what he said. That is freedom of speech and toleration.

It's a private bar. They didn't come to hear a gay basher come in. Free speech doesn't mean you have to just let every ELSE speak and not voice your own opinion. Free speech allows you to heckle and boo and tell him to get off the stage.

	20-07-2004 22:33									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Free speech doesn't mean you have to just let every ELSE speak and not voice your own opinion. Free speech allows you to heckle and boo and tell him to get off the stage or field.

Italics mine.

Friggin A' right. Go EAGLES!!

	20-07-2004 22:43									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints. *cough* Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show *cough*

And indeed, I don't think many of us did see Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show! Are you willing to admit you watch the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Imran?

quote: Originally posted by SpencerH I wouldnt call Ben Kenobi a contraversial poster.

His views on contraversial subjects are not shared by the majority of posters and he often gets attacked quite badly for them. Other than PA, who is more trollish than contraversial, I can't think of anyone more contraversial. And I don't think BK would be upset by the label I have jokingly applied to him either, given that he's proud of his beliefs (nothing wrong with that).

	20-07-2004 22:50									#112
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui They are 'not equivalent' on a technicality that one is on an action and the other is on an opinion. There is practically and morally no difference between voicing an opinion on an action or another opinion. When you voice an opinion on a political action you are basically voicing your opinion on the politician's opinion of what the world should be. Any difference between the two is trivial.

An opinion is inherently different from an action-Bush has taken policy actions based on his opinions that affect every American in some way. alrge or small. Me saying "I dislike Bush" is just an opinion which has no effect on you save if I excercise my right to vote against him. To criticize Bush's opinion and actions verbally is fine. To protest government actions is fine. To protest the opinions of a fellow private citizen outside of the government is distinctly different.

quote: Um... part of freedom of speech is that we have the right to attempt to convince people their opinions are wrong using our own opinions. To deny that is to deny free speech. It doesn't matter if it is to change opinion through pressure. The pressure is from the opinions of other people in the society. You cannot have free speech if you don't allow people to express their own opinions through boycotts and verbal pressure. It's essential.

No, it is not essential for freedom of speech to boycott the opinions of other private individuals. In a free market of idea the only pressure to change your opinion should come internally after analysing the ideas others have given you-that is called making up your own mind- if you think coming to an opinion freely from your own analysis of the information is equal to an opinion arrived at through pressure from outsiders to confrom, then I must say you have a strange view of freedom.

quote: It's a private bar. They didn't come to hear a gay basher come in. Free speech doesn't mean you have to just let every ELSE speak and not voice your own opinion. Free speech allows you to heckle and boo and tell him to get off the stage.

While I realize mentioning a private business add other rights to the mixture-but the point remains that to boycott others for their private opinions is a detriment to freedom of speech. Otehr rights might intersede, but boycotting people for their private opinions again is not a fundamental part of freedom of speech.

	20-07-2004 22:51									#113
	Got spare money?

quote: An opinion is inherently different from an action-Bush has taken policy actions based on his opinions that affect every American in some way. alrge or small. Me saying "I dislike Bush" is just an opinion which has no effect on you save if I excercise my right to vote against him. To criticize Bush's opinion and actions verbally is fine. To protest government actions is fine. To protest the opinions of a fellow private citizen outside of the government is distinctly different.

That's EXACTLY what you're doing, though. You're protesting Imran's opinion.

	20-07-2004 22:52									#114
	Support Apolyton

quote: Gee... you aren't very tolerant of people who express different views than your own... you just insult them, and state your point of view while ignoring theirs... So much for being a member of a so called tolerant society

Do I argue that they should be fired from their jobs, or that they should be boycotted?

No.

Case closed.

	20-07-2004 22:55									#115
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker That's EXACTLY what you're doing, though. You're protesting Imran's opinion.

NO, I am disagreeing with him and carrying out a debate. For me to protest him, I would write to the Mods trying to get him banned and put him on the ignore list.

That is the difference.

	20-07-2004 23:28									#116
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: To protest the opinions of a fellow private citizen outside of the government is distinctly different.

But it isn't. Just because a fellow private citizen's opinions don't affect you (and many times they may.. if they run a corporation for instance) doesn't mean that boycotting that opinion is any different than boycotting the opinions of someone in government. You disagree with that opinion, which you are subjected to in some way, and you wish to make it know that you disagree and do not wish to be subjected to it anymore.

The Dixie Chicks is a prime example. People did not agree with their opinions and to make that known they did not want to listen to their songs on the radio.

quote: it is not essential for freedom of speech to boycott the opinions of other private individuals.

Of course it is. Having the right to express your disaproval of a prominent private individual is essential for freedom of speech and that is what a boycott does. The NAACP must have the right to boycott the President of Tyson Foods who says 'blacks are dumb' (or something).

quote: if you think coming to an opinion freely from your own analysis of the information is equal to an opinion arrived at through pressure from outsiders to confrom

It's just about the same thing. 'Coming to an opinion freely' is a misnomer. The other debate partner is pressuring you by saying your opinion is incorrect. Boycott is just taking that and expanding it. Saying that your opinion is 'incorrect' and we'll make it known.

What do you think debate is? If you don't say your opponent's opinion is wrong then why debate in the first place?

quote: boycotting people for their private opinions again is not a fundamental part of freedom of speech.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I think without people having the right to boycott people for their private opinions freedom of speech is cheapened.

quote: For me to protest him, I would write to the Mods trying to get him banned and put him on the ignore list.

The boycott (such as it were) here wasn't to get Rondstadt fired, even though that is what happened, but to express displeasure of her opinions by the audience.

quote: I don't think many of us did see Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show! Are you willing to admit you watch the Rosie O'Donnell Show, Imran?

It was a pretty decent sized controversy in the US. I'm sure Sava knows what I'm talking about.

	20-07-2004 23:30									#117
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: But you don't see pro-Bush celebrities being attacked for their viewpoints. *cough* Tom Selleck on the Rosie O'Donnell Show *cough*

Selleck wasn't attacked for being pro-Bush, he was attacked for being pro-NRA and acting as a spokesman for them in ad campaigns.

	20-07-2004 23:46									#118
	Support Apolyton

quote: The Dixie Chicks is a prime example. People did not agree with their opinions and to make that known they did not want to listen to their songs on the radio.

Such people obviously hate the idea that people might express opinions they disagree with, and hate the idea that opinions should not be suppressed so that a free exchange of ideas can take place.

Jesus, I think Tom Selleck is a bit of a doofus when it comes to politics. But I don't think that we should boycott his shows or disrupt his means of making a living simply because he says things I disagree with. Selleck should feel free to express his political opinions, unless it is a matter of serious hate (which it isn't with him), without fear of endangering his livelihood.

If we have differences with Selleck's politics, our society has a way of resolving them - it is called the ballot. Any other way just works against the free exchange of ideas.

It's a cultural problem. What kind of person immediately thinks, upon hearing a dissenting opinion, "what is the most efficient way of ensuring that this is never said again?" I don't think that way: I'm more of the "why do I disagree with Selleck, and what is the best argument against his position?" sort of person.

	20-07-2004 23:47									#119
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui you wish to make it know that you disagree and do not wish to be subjected to it anymore. The Dixie Chicks is a prime example. People did not agree with their opinions and to make that known they did not want to listen to their songs on the radio.

That last sentence is the crux of the issue: "not to be subjected"? A private citizen can;t "subject you" to their opinion unless they have some other power over you directly. People are free to opt out of hearing someone- different from trying to force them to change their viewpoint or to surrender and keep shut. If you don't want to hear someone in the public, you opt out- you don't try to remove their ability to speak.

quote: Of course it is. Having the right to express your disaproval of a prominent private individual is essential for freedom of speech and that is what a boycott does. The NAACP must have the right to boycott the President of Tyson Foods who says 'blacks are dumb' (or something).

Corporations are not private citizens, they are private business organizations and if they are publicly traded, they have thousands of share owners and so forth. Hence private citizen=/ business and its officials.

quote: It's just about the same thing. 'Coming to an opinion freely' is a misnomer. The other debate partner is pressuring you by saying your opinion is incorrect. Boycott is just taking that and expanding it. Saying that your opinion is 'incorrect' and we'll make it known.

- ah, the "screw with definitions" game again. NO, telling you " I think you are wrong" is not pressure. Telling you "I think you are wrong, and I will make sure you lose financially becuase of it", that is pressure.

quote: What do you think debate is? If you don't say your opponent's opinion is wrong then why debate in the first place?

Saying someone else is wrong is not "pressure". Period.

quote: I disagree wholeheartedly. I think without people having the right to boycott people for their private opinions freedom of speech is cheapened.

People have the right to vote for populists demagogues as well- and I would not argue that they should be denied it. But just as voting for a populist demogogue is using your rights to undermine them, so is boycotting someone for their opinions one way someone can use their right to make it harder for all of us to trully use them.

	20-07-2004 23:49									#120
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Of course it is. Having the right to express your disaproval of a prominent private individual is essential for freedom of speech and that is what a boycott does

One does not equal the other. I can express my disapproval by simply expressing the contrary opinion, by writing the said individual a letter expressing my opinion, or writing to the papers. There's no reason why I have to attack this person's livelihood.

I don't agree with the Tyson foods boycott. What about all the other people at Tyson foods who will be affected because of this person's stupid comments?